UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Vassenor]

So apparently Nigel was passing data to Assange on a regular basis.

good

How so?

[Ifreann]

I'd rather have a bridge that goes to the Netherlands. The Netherlands has cheese and weed, France has terrorism and frogs.

And cheese.

---

So apparently Nigel was passing data to Assange on a regular basis.

Arrest and extradite.

Lock the door behind him next time he goes to the embassy to visit Assange.

[Souseiseki]

head of CPS had the gall to say she doesn't think anyone is wrongly in jail for rape in a week where two people were released from jail after spending years there after being wrongly convicted for rape. absolute fucking loon.

[The Huskar Social Union]

head of CPS had the gall to say she doesn't think anyone is wrongly in jail for rape in a week where two people were released from jail after spending years there after being wrongly convicted for rape. absolute fucking loon.

Jesus fuck

[Mutz]

He is? Huh, thanks for the info! I assumed that the head of a national bank would need to be of the corresponding nationality, since that was always the case so far in DE, AU, CH and FR. Which is my main frame of reference. Good to know that it isn't universal!

Edit: Apparently he's the first non-Briton in that position ever, so maybe that's a bit of a sea change.

It's a new state of affairs in the UK but not in the world. The governor preceding the two most recent of the Bank of Canada is a Briton, the current governor of the Brazilian CB is an Israeli, the current vice chair of the Fed Reserve is the former CB governor of Israel and there were two Fed governors that weren't american - a briton and a pole

for that note, the ceo of deutsche bank is british

It was just rather odd that you felt the need to emphasise the nationality of the president, since he'd naturally be a German.

let's see

my quote

"German President of the Central Bank Weidmann"

your version

"President of the Central Bank Weidmann"

yeah but bank of what? Tahiti and the Christmas Islands?

So at first you set out to show, that the president of a central bank doesn't need to have the corresponding nationality. That's all nice and well, but makes your version even less meaningful, since you refer explicitly only to the presidents nationality. Which, as you have shown, doesn't necessarily tells us anything about the bank in question. So good going I guess. My version was President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, which is pretty precise. Or you could just shuffle that "German" from the start of your version three words forward and all confusion would dissolve into pure unicorn smiles.

So how is your original statement factual, based on this source?

you'll need to point out how it isn't, as this is your third post in relation to the issue and still hasn't mentioned how my post is supposedly false, other than omitting a chapter of details that there may be other exogenous factors at play, even though the migration issue was the prime example provided by weidmann, the rest of which has been reduced to 'among other factors' which would seem weird if it only accounted for <0.01% of the problem

the 2008 crash was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis. among other factors...

If anything I've reiterated multiple times how your original statement is not only misleading, but false. So here we go again I guess:
1. There is no slow wage growth, as you have falsely claimed, it's above average in fact. The bone of contention is that Weidmann expected it to be even higher.

2. It's not, as you've insinuated, a purely German problem, since he goes on to name a bunch of other countries with the same problem in a similar situation. Some quite far removed from the possibility of being overrun by dastardly hordes of EU-Migrants.

3. He doesn't "blame" EU-migration for the situation regading wage growth. He says that it seems like it's a partial (his words) factor, along with a number of other ones. Which is also were migration gets it's only mention, in a single sentece, of the whole speech. Pretty much of an even keel with the unions. If anything, he seems rather more worried about the proliferation of global value chains.

4. He then goes on to say, that "More research is needed here, however, to determine which factors are the most prevalent, and whether they are temporary or secular in nature." In his mind, the main culprit, if it even exists , hasn't been identified yet. To reiterate: Migration isn't the "prime" explanation offered by Weidman, it's merely the first one.

If you have other sources to back up your initial claims, you've yet to produce them, because his speech contradicts you on every single point of your original claim.

Unless you meant the last part of your post about those racist brexiters infiltrating everything willy-nilly....

[HMS Barham]

Constant decline asymptotes to zero. What you are saying is that the British will die out on a longer time scale than your care about, not that they will not die out.

Fine, but extrapolation only doesn't work if the underlying drivers change. I'm not denying they might - I certainly am trying to make them in my own small way by arguing with wrong people deep in the tubes of the internets - but realistically either 1. they won't or 2. they will change in a very right wing direction. I find it hard to see how the British will survive without a huge shift to the far right.

That's going somewhat off the topic though given my original statement was a description of what we are doing now, not a prediction that we'll keep doing that forever. Again, maybe we won't. I certainly don't want us to. But you guys apparently do.

[Salandriagado]

Fine, but extrapolation only doesn't work if the underlying drivers change. I'm not denying they might - I certainly am trying to make them in my own small way by arguing with wrong people deep in the tubes of the internets - but realistically either 1. they won't or 2. they will change in a very right wing direction. I find it hard to see how the British will survive without a huge shift to the far right.

That's going somewhat off the topic though given my original statement was a description of what we are doing now, not a prediction that we'll keep doing that forever. Again, maybe we won't. I certainly don't want us to. But you guys apparently do.

Once again: Generalised Hardy-Weinberg.

[Ostroeuropa]

head of CPS had the gall to say she doesn't think anyone is wrongly in jail for rape in a week where two people were released from jail after spending years there after being wrongly convicted for rape. absolute fucking loon.

head of CPS had the gall to say she doesn't think anyone is wrongly in jail for rape in a week where two people were released from jail after spending years there after being wrongly convicted for rape. absolute fucking loon.

Jesus fuck

It's worse than that by the way. She said the type of evidence that cleared the men isn't important and isn't necessary to investigations. So she's flirting with the idea of it being fine to knowingly imprison innocent men when a woman accuses them just because the alternative is to go against her ideology based bigotry, or the idea that it might have been better not to find out these men were innocent. She's not merely complacent and refusing to admit there's a problem, she's shilling for the problem to continue.

Covered it.
viewtopic.php?p=33307065#p33307065

She'll be joining Duluth and Koss as well as others as an example of the human rights abuses feminism has enacted against men. With her, it's a continuation of the Lacrosse mentality, and the kangaroo courts on university campuses that target men (A minority on campus) in the US, which courts ruled as violating their right to due process. (Something her attitude here also runs afoul of.)

Far from being an isolated incident, the mainstream effect of feminist lobbying on rape is to violate mens human rights, and this is not a coincidence, rather, it is rooted in the lack of concern for men and their wellbeing and hostility toward them that the movement fosters. This is also the case with domestic abuse.

For rape and domestic abuse, it's sourced in the feminist "Blood libel" against men that they are responsible for rape/domestic abuse and erasure of female perpetration that forms the basis of much of the demonization of men and them being hounded out of institutions like education and childcare, which has resulted in a collapse of boys grades over time and generations of boys being discriminated against in the education system, custody, etc.

In terms of feminist supremacy in the justice system, you've also got the attempts to stop imprisoning women altogether from some feminist lobbyists, thus further entrenching womens privilege on that issue. In media, justice, and education, feminism has shown itself to be a cancerous and supremacist ideology, and that its adherents are far too often unfit for positions in those institutions. That's before you even get into the culture and laws it has brought about.

[Imperializt Russia]

There are countries that aren't the UK that use the English Channel to move international shipping.

Like, every country in North Europe that isn't France.

Yes.

I acknowledged that in the post you just quoted.

Why you quoted me to point out something I pointed out in the quote is rather ambiguous.

They want Britain to pay into the EU budget - that is fine. Finance these contributions from a toll they will pay to move their shipping around. Zero-sum!

They all pay to pass through Suez, Kiel and Panama anyway. And going around the British Isles wastes much more money than going around Denmark.

Just one of these Danish Maersk's would pay circa $2 million USD each if Panamanian shipping regulations were imposed. That's a good $2.5-$3 billion from German exports alone.

There's also a pretty good reason to avoid the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland waters anyway.

I don't think they'd stand for that. Unlike what the EU is doing, that is literally extortion.

Consider the implications of ideological feminists like this being in institutions
-
This group of people must be rooted out of our institutions, the damage they have done reversed, and the problems they have refused to fix, finally fixed.
This is not much different than that woman who refused to issue driving licenses to gay people.

Those were marriage licences, I believe the difference is important enough to point out. You've also not substantiated how she is an "ideological feminist in an institution", except that she said something that a notoriously alarmist paper has twisted to get people like you to make assertions like these.

This persons religion makes them unfit for duty due to the prejudice it has fostered in them, and they should be forced to resign, or perhaps even imprisoned if it constitutes a crime to refuse to perform your duty on those grounds like it was for the driving license lady.

This would be funny if it wasn't so fucking disturbing.

Think about her statement. None. No people in jail wrongly accused of rape, in the whole country, doesn't happen.
She cannot possibly know that. It is a statement born of her religious beliefs.

This was not her statement.

This was her "statement":

Asked on Radio 4’s Today if it was possible innocent people were in prison because of disclosure failures, she replied: ‘I don’t think so.

‘Because what these cases show is that when we take a case through to trial there are various safeguards in place, not least of which the defence indicating what their defence is going to be.

‘Disclosure is a vital matter which we take very seriously, but it is clear that there are systemic issues across the entire criminal justice system. The problem we have found recently is around the ever-increasing use of social media, all the digital material we obtain.’

Talking specifically about whether or not issues in disclosure have led to miscarriages of justice, not "no people are ever falsely imprisoned for any reason on any charge".

The issue over disclosure as I understand it, is that cases are going forwards and then failing once the disclosure occurs. Effectively, arguably, wasting the time and money of the courts and the CPS with trials that are inherently flawed.
The argument being made is that the disclosure always occurs, just that usually it's absurdly late into a court proceeding and causes cases to fail.

And you twist this into a literal feminist conspiracy.
Get a hold of yourself, Ostro.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.

I acknowledged that in the post you just quoted.

Why you quoted me to point out something I pointed out in the quote is rather ambiguous.

They want Britain to pay into the EU budget - that is fine. Finance these contributions from a toll they will pay to move their shipping around. Zero-sum!

They all pay to pass through Suez, Kiel and Panama anyway. And going around the British Isles wastes much more money than going around Denmark.

Just one of these Danish Maersk's would pay circa $2 million USD each if Panamanian shipping regulations were imposed. That's a good $2.5-$3 billion from German exports alone.

There's also a pretty good reason to avoid the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland waters anyway.

(Image)

I don't think they'd stand for that. Unlike what the EU is doing, that is literally extortion.

Consider the implications of ideological feminists like this being in institutions
-
This group of people must be rooted out of our institutions, the damage they have done reversed, and the problems they have refused to fix, finally fixed.
This is not much different than that woman who refused to issue driving licenses to gay people.

Those were marriage licences, I believe the difference is important enough to point out. You've also not substantiated how she is an "ideological feminist in an institution", except that she said something that a notoriously alarmist paper has twisted to get people like you to make assertions like these.

This persons religion makes them unfit for duty due to the prejudice it has fostered in them, and they should be forced to resign, or perhaps even imprisoned if it constitutes a crime to refuse to perform your duty on those grounds like it was for the driving license lady.

This would be funny if it wasn't so fucking disturbing.

Think about her statement. None. No people in jail wrongly accused of rape, in the whole country, doesn't happen.
She cannot possibly know that. It is a statement born of her religious beliefs.

This was not her statement.

This was her "statement":

Asked on Radio 4’s Today if it was possible innocent people were in prison because of disclosure failures, she replied: ‘I don’t think so.

‘Because what these cases show is that when we take a case through to trial there are various safeguards in place, not least of which the defence indicating what their defence is going to be.

‘Disclosure is a vital matter which we take very seriously, but it is clear that there are systemic issues across the entire criminal justice system. The problem we have found recently is around the ever-increasing use of social media, all the digital material we obtain.’

Talking specifically about whether or not issues in disclosure have led to miscarriages of justice, not "no people are ever falsely imprisoned for any reason on any charge".

The issue over disclosure as I understand it, is that cases are going forwards and then failing once the disclosure occurs. Effectively, arguably, wasting the time and money of the courts and the CPS with trials that are inherently flawed.
The argument being made is that the disclosure always occurs, just that usually it's absurdly late into a court proceeding and causes cases to fail.

And you twist this into a literal feminist conspiracy.
Get a hold of yourself, Ostro.

I never alleged conspiracy, there's that blindspot again where a feminist appears unable to comprehend the idea they could just be wrong and fucking up. Do you have any explanation for why this possibility didn't occur to you and you went straight for "Conspiracy" instead? And a "Literal" one at that?
Do you think conservative voters conspire to break the economy? Or just ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs and go with belly feel and buzz phrases they learned, alongside some circular rationalization frameworks. See, because if conservatives seemed unable to grapple with the notion that they are just wrong, interpreting every criticism as "Conspiracy" accusations, it would be suggestive, wouldn't it, that they've never bothered to consider "What if i'm wrong.".
Do you have an explanation for why this is such a common meme among feminists, and why you fell afoul of it here? Is it duplicity and intellectual dishonesty, or a blind spot? I'd believe either, since either are fairly characteristic of most of the movement.

As for the quote you pull out, it's not the only quote, there's others.

She said police were obliged to pursue ‘all reasonable lines of inquiry’ but added: ‘That doesn’t mean going into every single avenue of your life.’

It's not a coincidence that this problem has worsened under her.

This would be funny if it wasn't so fucking disturbing.

What's disturbing about it? I'm fully confident that if we applied laws properly and evenly, many feminists would be in jail for their work as feminists, and many more would have been fired or cautioned.

[Imperializt Russia]

You accused her of being a feminist because what you think she said lines up with what you perceive to be a feminist point.

You then went onto lament the feminist takeover of our institutions, critically focused upon this one person you are accusing of being a feminist.

You are alleging conspiracy.

Oh, and her last statement isn't "let's never look at social media" either.

[Ostroeuropa]

You accused her of being a feminist because what you think she said lines up with what you perceive to be a feminist point.

You then went onto lament the feminist takeover of our institutions, critically focused upon this one person you are accusing of being a feminist.

You are alleging conspiracy.

Oh, and her last statement isn't "let's never look at social media" either.

That isn't alleging a conspiracy, you're just displaying your blind spot again. I'll try once more.

Do you think conservative voters conspire to break the economy? Or just ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs and go with belly feel and buzz phrases they learned, alongside some circular rationalization frameworks. See, because if conservatives seemed unable to grapple with the notion that they are just wrong, interpreting every criticism as "Conspiracy" accusations, it would be suggestive, wouldn't it, that they've never bothered to consider "What if i'm wrong.".
Lamenting kneejerk conservativism that doesn't engage with evidence and carries on down a road of austerity and such wouldn't be "Alleging conspiracy", and the fact you can't tell the difference when it's criticism directed at feminists is highly suggestive that you've never actually properly considered criticism against feminists and just write it off, imo.

Do you have an explanation for why this is so common a meme among feminists?

[Imperializt Russia]

We still haven't substantiated the Crown Prosecutor's feminist credentials, btw.

Your blind spot maybe?

[Ostroeuropa]

We still haven't substantiated the Crown Prosecutor's feminist credentials, btw.

Your blind spot maybe?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... stice.html

Here you go.
It's also a nice way we can tie all this shit directly back to her and her feminist influence on the institution, to properly lay the blame for these case scandals where it belongs. Incidentally, MRAs were talking about this months before any of this hit when we heard. Guess what.

"Conspiracy!".

Because "I'm wrong" is an alien concept, apparently. This apparently disappeared down the orwellian memory hole. That was 3 years ago. These fuck ups are the fruits of her labor.

Neither you nor your peers will ever improve until you ditch these thought terminating cliches you've riddled yourselves with. Know what? I have half a mind to dig back and find someone calling it a conspiracy when I said precisely this would happen.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's also a nice way we can tie all this shit directly back to her and her feminist influence on the institution,

"I'm not alleging a conspiracy"
>continually alleges conspiracy

[Imperializt Russia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11376712/Rape-law-One-womans-quest-to-overturn-decades-of-injustice.html

"You're calling this woman a feminist, how is she a feminist?"
>links to article that doesn't even contain the word

[Ostroeuropa]

It's also a nice way we can tie all this shit directly back to her and her feminist influence on the institution,

"I'm not alleging a conspiracy"
>continually alleges conspiracy

There's that blind spot again.

Do you think conservative voters conspire to break the economy? Or just ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs and go with belly feel and buzz phrases they learned, alongside some circular rationalization frameworks. See, because if conservatives seemed unable to grapple with the notion that they are just wrong, interpreting every criticism as "Conspiracy" accusations, it would be suggestive, wouldn't it, that they've never bothered to consider "What if i'm wrong.".
Lamenting kneejerk conservativism that doesn't engage with evidence and carries on down a road of austerity and such wouldn't be "Alleging conspiracy", and the fact you can't tell the difference when it's criticism directed at feminists is highly suggestive that you've never actually properly considered criticism against feminists and just write it off, imo.

What, specifically, about my statement do you think means i'm alleging conspiracy rather than cock up.
be specific.

I'm quite sure if some homeopath took over the NHS, we'd see a bunch of terrible bullshit, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy, just toxic ideological influence. Apparently, you would. It must be so hard, to see monsters where none exist constantly. Explains the patriarchy assertions.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11376712/Rape-law-One-womans-quest-to-overturn-decades-of-injustice.html

"You're calling this woman a feminist, how is she a feminist?"
>links to article that doesn't even contain the word

Strains credulity I think.

and in the meantime, Ms Saunders should keep shouting about what she’s doing to improve justice for women, while following her words with firm action.

Or here you go.

https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... -month.pdf

[Imperializt Russia]

What, specifically, about my statement do you think means i'm alleging conspiracy rather than cock up.
be specific.

Not sure I can be arsed to write a post that long tbh.

[Imperializt Russia]

"You're calling this woman a feminist, how is she a feminist?"
>links to article that doesn't even contain the word

Strains credulity I think.

and in the meantime, Ms Saunders should keep shouting about what she’s doing to improve justice for women, while following her words with firm action.

"It's impossible to suggest that maybe there are issues in the justice system that affect women, it can only be ideological blindness".

There are issues in the justice system that affect everyone. It's a pretty bad system, all told.
One group it affects is women, and a woman doesn't like it.

This now means this woman is a "feminist", because it is impossible for a woman to just think something without being part of a literal hivemind.

And again, to conspiracy.
Leave it in the feminism thread where I don't have to bother reading it kthnx

[Ostroeuropa]

What, specifically, about my statement do you think means i'm alleging conspiracy rather than cock up.
be specific.

Not sure I can be arsed to write a post that long tbh.

So we'll write this up as you not being willing to confront a toxic, thought terminating cliche meme your peers gave you alongside some anger I managed to pull up her credentials. Hey, i'm willing to admit me being an asshole probably didn't help you digging your heels in.
yet, dug in they are.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not sure I can be arsed to write a post that long tbh.

So we'll write this up as you not being willing to confront a toxic, thought terminating cliche meme

You were right up to this part, I'll put it that way.

[Ostroeuropa]

Strains credulity I think.

"It's impossible to suggest that maybe there are issues in the justice system that affect women, it can only be ideological blindness".

There are issues in the justice system that affect everyone. It's a pretty bad system, all told.
One group it affects is women, and a woman doesn't like it.

This now means this woman is a "feminist", because it is impossible for a woman to just think something without being part of a literal hivemind.

And again, to conspiracy.
Leave it in the feminism thread where I don't have to bother reading it kthnx

She also meets with feminist lobbyists for DV and rape. So, like I said, strains credulity to think she isn't a feminist. But if you're determined to ignore the problems the movement causes others, there's not much we can do.

Where is the conspiracy. Be specific. What specifically makes it a conspiracy rather than a cock up i'm alleging.
It's UK news.

So we'll write this up as you not being willing to confront a toxic, thought terminating cliche meme

You were right up to this part, I'll put it that way.

That's interesting. Which thoughts specifically do you think mens advocacy, in the context of the united kingdom, terminates? Because I see it bringing issues to light rather than suppressing them. In fact, you see that 2015 article with feminist waffle? The thoughts being terminated there by the ideological blinders are "Due Process.", something the MRM brought up, and hey look, 2018 and we're talking about it.

See, the whole "NO U" thing you're doing doesn't really fly if your accusation makes no bloody sense. I'm specifically talking about this "Conspiracy" nonsense you seem to be obsessed with and how it prevents interacting with criticism.

[Vassenor]

Not sure I can be arsed to write a post that long tbh.

So we'll write this up as you not being willing to confront a toxic, thought terminating cliche meme your peers gave you alongside some anger I managed to pull up her credentials. Hey, i'm willing to admit me being an asshole probably didn't help you digging your heels in.
yet, dug in they are.

Fun fact: The Chewbacca defence does not work in the real world. If a debate gets to the point where people cannot be bothered to continue debating with you, it doesn't mean you win.

[Ostroeuropa]

So we'll write this up as you not being willing to confront a toxic, thought terminating cliche meme your peers gave you alongside some anger I managed to pull up her credentials. Hey, i'm willing to admit me being an asshole probably didn't help you digging your heels in.
yet, dug in they are.

Fun fact: The Chewbacca defence does not work in the real world. If a debate gets to the point where people cannot be bothered to continue debating with you, it doesn't mean you win.

None of you ever seem able to answer that fairly simple question of what makes it a conspiracy i'm alleging. You've had years to think about it, and still have nothing. Yet, it still comes up. You are apparently completely unwilling to improve as debaters in terms of intellectual honesty by either coming up with a justification for it, or noting the toxic behavior your peers have caused in you and working to remove it. You can characterize that criticism of this "Conspiracy" meme both of you use as a chewbacca defense if you want. I'll leave it to the jury, thanks. You've done this one too, in this thread and others. It is apparently a herculean effort to answer this question for the "Conspiracy" crowd, as no matter the time of year, topic, or what else is going on, it always causes them to become exhausted. Despite it coming up both in 2015 when MRAs were accused of saying feminists were in conspiracy to fuck over due process and us insisting "No, just cock up" and then being proven right, and that's just this one specific issue and person, the meme still gets used.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 66746.html

Alternative source to the mail.

They rightly criticize her for the shift of the burden of proof, the same shift MRAs have criticized feminists for on this issue for years.

"The suspect must have known he took photographs, that could have been raised very early," she said.

She added: "How would anyone have known there were photographs there until the defence told us that they were there?”

(Victim blaming.)

Harriet Johnson, a barrister who represented Mr Makele, said it was the police’s responsibility to find relevant material and not the suspect’s job “to do it for them”.

“To try to put the burden on the defendant to prove he is innocent fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence that has been a core principle of British justice for centuries,” she told The Independent.